Totally off-topic poll

Tris · #1 May 7th, 2004, 09:41 AM

Yeah - there were voters in Florida Last time around who said "MY vote won't count for anything" as well Norfleet.

I don't vote, as I believe this to be the best way to register my disillusionment with the political parties in this country, who no longer stand for anything other than being elected.

(As evidenced by "New Labour" being composed of the same people as "Old Labour" but with an entirely different manefesto! Either they all changed beliefs overnight, or they want power more than anything they believe in. Either way I don't want to vote for any of them, and believe the Conservatives are no better.

If I was an American I'd vote to remove Bush.

Stormbinder · #2 May 8th, 2004, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nagot Gick Fel:

quote:
Originally posted by Stormbinder:
Please only those who are USA citizens vote in this pole.

Please no offence to all other players, this restriction is purely due to specific political nature of this poll, otherwise the results will not be meaningfull.

Then you should have made the poll results viewable by non-voters as well.

Hmm is there such option? Or you mean adding "non-USA observer" vote option?

Whatever the case I agree, it would be a good idea. However I have created this poll on the spur of the moment, haven't really put any thoughts into it, other than the fact that I wanted to quickly check that theory that I've meantioned.

tinkthank · #3 May 8th, 2004, 01:19 AM

Although Kerry may be a wimp, he is certainly not the embodiment of evil , as G. W. Bush has proven himself to be. Together with Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet and Rice they have now (with the recent knowledge that the atrocities commited by soldiers upon prisoners in Iraq and Cuba are by no means isolated mishaps but sympomatic results of a systematic means-justifies-the-ends utilitarianism and demonization or dehumanization of that which is deemed a foreign threat being the dead giveaway) succeeded in drastically harming America for what will certainly prove to be 50 years or more (not to mention all the other damage to civil liberties, human rights, and other once-upheld American ideals, as well as ecological and economical damage).

I think Americans must vote for Kerry, since they have created an electorial system (which might have made sense in the 18th century but is certainly senatorial and aristocratic (in the original sense of the word) in both origin and nature) to which they dogmatically adhere and which unfortunately disbars faith in "direct representation" by allowing at present only 2 nationally funded parties (a non-trivial consequence of which is the fact that should there be one less party (a total of 1 instead of 2) we would have a dictatorship).

johan osterman · #4 May 7th, 2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tinkthank:
Although Kerry may be a wimp, he is certainly not the embodiment of evil , as G. W. Bush has proven himself to be. Together with Ashcroft, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Tenet and Rice they have now (with the recent knowledge that the atrocities commited by soldiers upon prisoners in Iraq and Cuba are by no means isolated mishaps but sympomatic results of a systematic means-justifies-the-ends utilitarianism and demonization or dehumanization of that which is deemed a foreign threat being the dead giveaway) succeeded in drastically harming America for what will certainly prove to be 50 years or more (not to mention all the other damage to civil liberties, human rights, and other once-upheld American ideals, as well as ecological and economical damage).

...

I don't think the abuse is a result of any policy or rethoric, as far as I can tell these things almost ivariably crop up whenever people are given the amount of power over other people that prison guards do under these circumstances. The failure here is not as much the official rethoric as failing to insure that the proper checks and control mechanisms are in place to stop these sort of things, or so I believe.

johan osterman · #5 May 7th, 2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tinkthank:
...
allowing at present only 2 nationally funded parties (a non-trivial consequence of which is the fact that should there be one less party (a total of 1 instead of 2) we would have a dictatorship).

If we had five less parties represented in the swedish parlament (a total of 1 instead of 6) Sweden would also be a dictatorship, if we accept your usage of the term.

tinkthank · #6 May 7th, 2004, 02:37 PM

Actually, JO, that is what I believed up until the recent reports that this form of behavior was explicitly *encouraged* by the military intelligence agency and a part of the pentagon. The Tolstoy dictum ("give a man a uniform and a drum and he will turn into a monster") is certainly true, but has been exacerbated under the mistaken idea that this would lead to easier access to gleaning information from potential terrorists about future plans. Really.

tinkthank · #7 May 7th, 2004, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by johan osterman:

quote:
Originally posted by tinkthank:
...
allowing at present only 2 nationally funded parties (a non-trivial consequence of which is the fact that should there be one less party (a total of 1 instead of 2) we would have a dictatorship).

If we had five less parties represented in the swedish parlament (a total of 1 instead of 6) Sweden would also be a dictatorship, if we accept your usage of the term.

Yes, but you have 6, we only have 2. This is not a mere contingency and it is not a trivial difference.